GREATER GOLDEN HILL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
October 12, 2011
Meeting Agenda is found in Attachment 1 at the end of these minutes.
Meeting was held at Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse – Golf Course Drive.
Vice-Chair Ruchell Alvarez called meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Agenda had been posted in accordance with Brown Act. A quorum of members was present.
Members present: Ruchell Alvarez, Richard Baldwin, Cheryl Brierton, Susan Bugbee, Maureen Burke, Carole Caffey, John Kroll, Richard Santini, Pat Shields, David Skillman, Marie Skillman, David Strickland, David Swarens, Matt Thomas, Angela Vasconcellos, Jessica Wolf. Members absent: none
Addition/deletions to Agenda - None.
Approvals of Minutes – Minutes of 9/14/11 meeting were approved (motion Brierton, second D Skillman) 15 in favor, none opposed, Caffey abstained.
Shields requested that copies of emails regarding the proposed length of this meeting be attached to these minutes. They appear as Attachment 2.
Treasurer’s Report: – balance remains the same.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Brian Beavers, GGH Farmers Market: Has applied for continuing permit for the Market, with GGHCDC letter of support. No complaints were lodged at the CDC meeting where this was discussed. Market hours may change, pending a meeting 10/15/11 with residents of Stone Mark complex (the Market is right in front of the complex). The hours would be 9:30 -2:30, with B Street closed from 8:30 – 3:30. Brierton asked who had been polled about the change of hours – those at the Market, Stone Mark residents, and flyers were left on cars in the areas. Shields thanked Beavers for considering the change of hours. Santini asked about financial consideration given to GGHCDC. So far, $1500 has been paid (3 x $500/month). Going forward, payments will be $400/month: $100 for marketing and $300 for CDC to use at its discretion.
Tershia D’Elgin, representative for District 8 on the Community Forest Advisory Board. Spoke about the Urban Forest. An Urban Analysis Eco Survey was taken in 2003 – SD’s tree canopy had decreased 27% between 1985-2003. 20,000 trees per year were to be planted in right-of-ways. City budget cuts of 40% to Park and Rec Department mean there is only on ranger in the City for urban forests and not Urban Forest project. Advocates are needed. Distributed copies of an article about water conservation and trees.
Jerry Ray noted that CA Gardens latest issue had an article about Urban Forests, relating to tree watering.
Kathryn Willets, GGHCDC. Meets the 3rd Thursday at 6:30 at the YET Center. October 20 is the annual meeting. City Council Members Gloria and Alvarez will be attending. There will be a discussion of the Clean, Green and Safe Program, as well as an election of CDC Board members.
GOVERNMENTAL REPORTS.
Community Police Officer Susie de la Pena: Reported the robbery on 9/22/11 of a GGH resident, who was tied up, tased and had purse, etc. stolen. A fight in 27th & B Street area on 10/9 resulted in 2 hospitalizations, 2 suspects are in custody. Car prowls are up – 6 thefts in 2 weeks in Central Division. Captain’s Advisory meeting is 11/22/11 at 5:30 pm. ARGIS website (Ewatch) is being replaced by crimemapping.com.
Brierton asked if robbery/tasing was a new, it was. Cell phones and laptops are easy to swipe and resell. Strickland thanked de la Pena for helping him get information about an incident last month. Baldwin asked about transients in the 25th Street area near the community garden in Balboa Park. De la Pena said this is a big issue, they move when action is taken in one area.
City Council District 3 – Anthony Bernal: Distributed copies of District 3 Dialogue. Noted that transient enforcement downtown is moving people around. Call 619-531-2000, please get an incident number. Distributed copies of memorandum from Councilmen Gloria and Alvarez to City Attorney and Mayor re: GGHMAD disposition. Gloria may attend our November meeting.
Kroll asked if representatives of Economic Development and City Attorneys office would be attending the CDC meeting on 10/20 – they have been invited (including deputy director Beth Murray) but have not RSVP’d yet.
Brierton asked if any answers had been received to questions in memo to City Attorney - No. What will happen with MAD assessment for coming year, and left over funds from past years? Could this be used on canyon projects? Funds will be returned. Infrastructure funds are no longer available to City Council members. No current funding source has been identified for canyon work, trashcan emptying, etc.
Thomas asked if the City currently has a program for graffiti cleanup. Urban Corp has a contract for this work in North Park and City Heights; the response time is 2-3 weeks. De la Pena suggested calling One Stop 619-525-8500, or the paint bank at 619-527-5419. Ryan Hallahan heads the graffiti unit 619-525-2749, send photos if possible to rhallahan@pd.sandiego.gov
Swarrens asked if City Council could ask the Mayor to address funding canyon spending. Bernal said the Mayor has not responded to the memorandum. Intends follow up in 2-3 weeks, Swarrens urged sooner.
Tershia D’Elgin asked what citizens should do. Call Ron Lacey at the Mayor’s office. D Skillman noted that MAD assessment is still listed on current property tax bills and should be paid. Alvarez asked about the paint bank – it provides free matching paint for graffiti paint-out. She wondered if MAD dissolution would lead to increased crime. Burke also wondered if trash, graffiti and litter are linked to crime.
City Council District 8 – Melina Meza: Confirmed Alvarez would attend the GGHCDC Board Meeting. District office wants to hear about dogs running loose or animal abuse. A Town Hall meeting is scheduled for 12/10/11, 6-8 pm at Sherman Heights Community Center, to discuss 2011 events and issues.
Swarrens said many in Sherman Heights area are unhappy with the quality of work on the under grounding project. He will give details to Meza for follow-up. Brierton asked about barking dogs – was told it is a code compliance issue that is no longer being handled due to budget issues. A group of neighbors complaining might get some action. Santini asked about skunks – there is no code relating to them.
53rd Congressional District – Katherine Fortner: Distributed copies of Davis Dispatch. Highlighted: Seminar on exporting 10/20/11, Medicare enrollment dates 10/15 – 12/7/11. Davis introduced a bill called the Short Sale Transparency Act, requiring minimum price disclosure by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
76th California Assembly District, Mayor’s Office: no representative present.
CONSENT AGENDA – none
CHAIR’S REPORT. There is concern about the Master Storm water Replacement at B & 25th Street. Willets said the project is on schedule, has been planned for several years. Those who are affected should monitor work carefully and report problems to the Water Department and City Councilmember.
VICE-CHAIR’S REPORT - none
INFORMATION ITEMS: none
ACTION ITEMS:
MAD update/ 25th St. Renaissance David Li, San Diego Public Works Associate Engineer distributed a handout describing items that had been included in the 25th St project with the expectation that a MAD would be in place. (See Attachment 3.) The GGH MAD dissolution has made a great difference. The project is on hold now, exploring options such as an EMRA (Encroachment Maintenance Removal Agreement) or a BID (Business Improvement District).
Shields asked about EMRA. It is a contract between City and property owners for maintaining landscape. Property owners become responsible at property line.
GGHPC members were given a chance to ask questions. Brierton asked what work would be done. Diagonal parking, widening sidewalks. Bernal said traffic calming is in, aesthetics are out. Kroll asked if property owners had been contacted yet. They have not. Thomas asked if the area of sidewalk widening would disrupt current landscaping. He asked about a BID – Bernal said that was being explored.
Burke asked why the logos in the sidewalks were dropped. Repair or replacement matching concrete is not available. Burke said the grant was for innovative ideas – why drop the aesthetics? Funding was lost. Why not put forward a vision? Li said the project is on hold so nothing is going forward. Bernal said the City wants the traffic calming but will not fund aesthetics. Burke said there will probably not be funding for some time. – Why not put forward a vision anyway.
Caffey agreed with Burke. She suggested overbuilding and under-equipping, keeping visionary plan and at least running water lines, etc. Alvarez had no comment. Shields said a phased project is supported. She asked why District 8 was not involved – Bernal said they had been.
D Skillman said that if under grounding could go in inexpensively, another assessment district may be formed. Why not get ready for that? Could enhancements come later? Strickland is disappointed in all of the lost funding. He has supported the project for 30 years and does not want it tabled by DSD. Put conduits in now, not later. Bugbee agreed with Strickland.
Swarrens said a plan with vision is needed; some elements may not be current. He urged no tree removal, or at least use of matching trees, noting that Urban Forest had a great street tree plan. M Skillman and Wolf had nothing to add. Vasconcellos asked if Phase I was just the plans. She wondered what needed to be in place for the next grant. Local support is needed to move forward on any grant.
D’Elgin asked City Planner Bernie Turgeon if the Municipal Code and GGH Community Plan require street trees. Turgeon said the CP does require them for projects, and that phased elements could be required.
Kathryn Willets, Craig Abenilla, and Mike Burnett spoke about the “Vision”. Willets said tree diversity was included in the plan, and removing trees is not planned – a canopy of trees is a traffic calmer. She said that a MAD was part of the original grant application. Design funds are only available at this time, since the City dawdled over plan applications.
Abenilla and Burnett are local architects. They drew up a plan of the entire length of the 25th Street Renaissance project, using input from the 3 community workshops and later meetings. They showed their plan, and noted that the consultants working on the grant had never produced an equivalent of this document. They said they had been to the City Capital Projects Division and two the 2 involved City Council members and had gotten nowhere. They asked for GGHPC support to move forward on getting the additional grant money, and for the remaining existing grant money to be used for a visionary plan, not a stripped-down version.
Brierton asked how we would be able to support this plan. Did GGHPC need to take action at this meeting? Baldwin made a motion to support Mike and Craig’s vision for 25th Street. Strickland seconded.
Discussion: Caffey asked for clarification of the plan. Information from meetings with landowners and from community workshops was combined to prepare a concept plan. Santini asked how much it would have cost to prepare the plan. Burnett said the two of them had put in work over 2 weeks time, 80 or more hours. Willets said that grant funds had gone for surveys and meetings but a conceptual design of the whole project was never produced.
Bernal said Dist. 3 likes the vision, and had scheduled the meeting with the Capital Projects Division. Some of the 15 elements had been voted down by GGHPC in August. Shields said that to approve this plan would undo GGHPC votes in December and August.
Baldwin changed his to “GGHPC supports the vision for the 5 block project on 25th Street”, then withdrew his motion altogether.
Swarrens offered a motion, then agreed to amendments by D Skillman and Burke: “ Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee supports the vision that came out of community workshops for the 25th Street Renaissance Project, and supports completing the plan for the entire length of 25th Street." Burke seconded.
The motion was approved, 14 in favor, 1 (Kroll) against, 1 (Alvarez) abstained.
CPUAC as a Committee of the Whole of GGHPC. M Skillman gave a report on the CPUAC meeting held 10/5/11. It was decided that the facilitator and secretary would be rotating positions. M Skillman was facilitator 10/5 and will be for 11/2/11 meeting. She said the CPUAC had discussed the Committee of the Whole and heard arguments on both sides. Favoring the idea was that all of the GGHPC members who wish to participate could do so - against was that a 23-member committee can be unwieldy and having a quorum in attendance might be an issue.
Shields noted that both the Uptown and North Park CPUAC’s include a Committee of the Whole. She noted that Councilmember DiMaio wants to accelerate the CP process – Shields wants as much participation as possible and noted there is a lot of work yet to be done. Swarrens noted that CPUAC meetings often get higher attendance of the public than GGHPC. Burke worried about an unwieldy size.
Thomas asked for clarification of current CPUAC makeup. Burke explained how members were selected in categories so all parts of the community had representation. Thomas said he had attended CPUAC meetings before becoming a GGHPC member and now feels disenfranchised.
Shields asked what GGHPC wanted. Strickland said he understood the CPUAC meetings were going to include breaking into smaller working groups, so size of CPUAC does not matter. Swarens also thought a Committee of the Whole might be OK.
Turgeon said that a Committee of the Whole + Others do not take further action; they just advise the Planning Committee. D Skillman noted that the CPUAC had not yet had any motioned items; so far they have only reported to PC or City. A Committee of the Whole might be helpful. M Skillman said it did not seem to make much difference. She made a motion “The Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee Community Plan Update Advisory Subcommittee be a Committee of the Whole, with 7 other members.” All voted in favor.
M Skillman continued her report on the CPUAC meeting. She explained that several approaches – focus groups, working by General Plan elements, breakout groups – had been discussed. In the end, Turgeon offered to prepare a list of “bullet points” regarding the Land Use element. These will be items identified by City staff working on the draft plan as needing more input or decision-making. Turgeon will be circulating the bullet points to GGHPC and the wider CPUAC email list, and M Skillman will post them on at gghpc.blogspot.com.
M Skillman noted that the 11/2/11 meeting would be at the GGHCDC office. An adequate number of chairs have been borrowed from the Moose Lodge. She passed out copies of the “Zoning and PDO” questions developed by the focus group convened by Rick Accurso.
Code Deviation Request 1635 Fern St. (Lot coverage 47%, FAR 66%, existing non-conforming set back to remain. Baldwin explained that Code Compliance was holding the property owners to new City rules for a business that has been in place since the 1930’s. A variance to the new code and FAR have been requested. D Skillman noted that street realignment had contributed to the situation. Baldwin recommended that the variance be approved. Swarens said that he thought neighbors should be noticed about our meeting before a vote is taken. The item was tabled, to be an Action Item at the November meeting.
Update Elements – Streetscape and Walkability. Turgeon distributed a document about How to Prioritize Activities Within the Portion of the Public Right of Way (ROW) available to pedestrians. (Attachment 4) He said he would forward his 21-slide Power Point Presentation to GGHPC members.
Turgeon said that the City is grappling with walkability issues and wants CPUAC to weigh in on priorities. He said North Park had done a lot of work on the issue of Utility Boxes. Turgeon said additional restrictions (zoning encroachments) are allowable in courtyards, etc. on private property and mixed-use.
Brierton asked what whether GGHPC needed to take any action now. No, this just opens a discussion. Brierton wants to assure pedestrian access. Shields said this is just information for CPUAC. Turgeon said LaJolla’s CP has encroachment regulations of only 8 ft, not less; this is a standard suited to the community. Swarens said frontage zones codified in Seaside FL have worked well. Willets asked if further discussion would happen at GGHPC or CPUAC. CPUAC.
Composition of letter to State Officials, requesting support for “Lid Parks” - was not discussed.
SUBCOMMITTEE & LIASON REPORTS.
Transportation Subcommittee: no report
Historic: Bugbee reported that the revised plan for South Park District had been submitted to Historic Resources Board, no response yet. Shields asked about the new Golden Hill District. Bugbee is collecting maps and old reports.
Balboa Park: Strickland reported (1) repairs are happening at Museum of Man (2) there was a workshop on bridge design, emphasizing flexibility; An EIR is expected in January, and GGHPC will be asked to review
Airport Noise: No report
The next meeting will be Wednesday, November 9 at 6:30 pm.
Meeting was adjourned meeting at 8:35 pm.
Marie Skillman.
Secretary
ATTACHMENT 1. AGENDA
GREATER GOLDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMITTEE
October 12, 2011 at 6:30 P.M.
Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse, 2600 Golf Course Drive
www.gghpc.blogspot.com
AMENDED AGENDA
6:30 CALL TO ORDER > Additions and/or Deletions to Agenda > Approval of Minutes
6:35 PUBLIC COMMENT
6:45 GOVERNMENTAL REPORTS
1. Community Police Officer – Suzy de la Pena {619.744.9514 or sdelapena@pd.sandiego.gov}
2. Council District 3 – Anthony Bernal {619.236.6633 or abernal@sandiego.gov}
3. Council District 8 – Melina Meza {619.236.6688 or melinam@sandiego.gov}
4. 53rd Congressional District – Katherine Fortner {619.280.5353 or katherine.fortner@mail.house.gov}
5. City Planner – Bernard Turgeon {619.533.6575 or bturgeon@sandiego.gov}
7:00 Chair Report, Vice Chair Report
7:15 CONSENT AGENDA ~ None
7:15 INFORMATION ITEMS ~ None
7:15 ACTION ITEMS
>MAD update/25th St. Renaissance {David Li San Diego Public Works Associate Engineer}
>Update elements – Streetscape and Walkability {Bernie Turgeon DSD Senior Planner}
> Code Deviation Request 1635 Fern St. [Lot coverage 47%, FAR 66%, existing non-conforming set back to remain]
>CPUAC as a Committee of the Whole
>Composition of letter to State Officials, requesting support for “Lid Parks”
9:00 SUBCOMMITTEE & LIASION REPORTS
a)Airport Noise & Treasurers Report – Carole Caffey
b)Balboa Park & Transportation – David Strickland
c)Historic* – Susan Bugbee {bugbee@sandiego.edu}
d)Community Planners Committee – Ruchell Alvarez
e)Land-Use* – Richard Baldwin {kimorb_1999@yahoo.com}
*If you are interested in attending the Historic or Land Use meeting please email the appropriate committee to confirm meeting and agenda.
9:15 ADJOURN MEETING
*All times are estimated – Action Items may also be taken before Information Items
The City of San Diego distributes agendas via email and can also provide agendas in alternative formats as well as a sign language or oral interpreter for the meeting with advance notice. To request these services, please contact the City at 619.236.6479 or sdplanninggroups@sandiego.gov
ATTACHMENT 2. EMAILS (6) REGARDING DURATION OF MEETING
(1) From: david@so-park-thoughts.info
Subject: Oct PC meeting's duration
Date: October 6, 2011 9:11:02 PM PDT
To: david@theskillmans.com, bugbee@sandiego.edu, alvarezruchell@aol.com, Moburkesd@gmail.com, info@richardhsantiniphoto.com, BTurgeon@sandiego.gov, angivasco@hotmail.com, and 10 more…
No one will be able to focus for that long, at the end of a day, on detailed, complex matters.
Drop something, or I promise to try to recruit enough members to remove a quorum at 8:30.
Seriously, we meet at the Golf Clubhouse at the pleasure of the restaurant manager. Any time after 8:30, we're inconveniencing him, and all he has to do is mention it to his boss, and we're looking for another meeting place.
As a suggestion, Pat, allot a reasonable time to each of the action items to allow an 8:30 end to the meeting, and state that at the end of each item's alloted time, it will be tabled for further action at the Nov PC meeting. Robert's Rules approves this.
I love GGH, and am working hard for it, but I have a life. - DS
(2) From: crcaffey@cox.net
Subject: Re: Oct PC meeting's duration
Date: October 6, 2011 9:30:12 PM PDT
To: david@so-park-thoughts.info, david@theskillmans.com, bugbee@sandiego.edu, alvarezruchell@aol.com, moburkesd@gmail.com, info@richardhsantiniphoto.com, BTurgeon@sandiego.gov, and 10 more…
There is no way this meeting should go beyond 2 hours. I, for one, will
not stay past 8:30. We are a planning committee and not an open venue for
all things Golden Hill.
Thank you,
Carole
Carole R. Caffey, Principal
Caffey Solutions Consulting
302 Washington Street, Suite 236
San Diego, CA 92103
T: 619-501-5151 C: 619-884-6599
carole.caffey@caffeysolutions.com
www.caffeysolutions.com
(3) From: alvarezruchell@aol.com
Subject: Re: Oct PC meeting's duration
Date: October 6, 2011 10:09:25 PM PDT
To: david@so-park-thoughts.info, david@theskillmans.com, bugbee@sandiego.edu, moburkesd@gmail.com, info@richardhsantiniphoto.com, BTurgeon@sandiego.gov, angivasco@hotmail.com, and 10 more…
David, I volunteered to do the agenda this month. I understand that I allotted 45 mins in the beginning of the meeting for public comment, government reports, and chair/vice chair report. However, since I've been on the committee it has never taken us that long to move through the beginning of the agenda. With that in mind I didn't think it was necessary to be minute specific.
Apparently I was wrong, it's really not the end of the world though.
I'm sure this can be worked out with less extreme measures than a coordinated 8:30 walk out.
To the rest of the committee.... I apologize.
Ruchell
(4) From: skillman david
To: Ruchell Alvarez
Sent: Fri, Oct 7, 2011 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: Oct PC meeting's duration
The walk out threat was kind of tongue in cheek, but since I've received some support, ... nah, probably won't happen.
The "first attempt was returned" notice you received was strange, since it came to me. However, I notice that you are using the same e-dress for David Swarens that caused my mailing to mark just his as undeliverable. If you still have the Mailer Daemon notice, look and see if it was actually just his that wasn't delivered. Marie gave me what must be his correct e-dress, because when I used that, it was sent, and I have a reply from him confirming the correct one: "info@loscalifornios.com". I've asked him to send an e-mail to the entire PC so we all can cut and paste into our address program. - DS
(5) On Oct 12, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Ruchell Alvarez wrote:
David,
Please be mindful of the following when considering future threats and/or protests against the committee.
Council Policy 600-24
Section 2 (a) (ix) Collective Concurrence: In accordance with Brown Act section 54952.2, any attempt to develop a collective concurrence of the members of a planning group as to action to be taken on an item by members of a planning group, either by direct or indirect communication, by personal intermediaries, by serial meetings, or by technological devices, is prohibited, other than at a properly noticed public meeting.
Council Policy 600-24 Administrative Guidelines
The attempt to develop a collective concurrence among a majority of the members, also
known as conducting a serial meeting, outside of a meeting held in accordance with the
Brown Act requirements, is a prohibited meeting. A serial meeting is best described as a
series of discussions or deliberations held between one member and any other member(s),
that does not comply with the Brown Act’s public noticing and comment requirements,
for the purpose of or with the result of developing a concurrence between a majority of the members regarding an action to be taken.
Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee Bylaws (In accordance with Council Policy 600-24)
Article VI Section 1 Planning Group Member Duties: It is the duty of a planning group as a whole, and of each individual member, to refrain from conduct that is detrimental to the planning group or its purposes under Council Policy 600-24. No member shall be permitted to disturb the public meeting so as to disrupt the public process as forth in the planning group’s agenda.
The following can be found in the 2007 version of Administrative Guidelines. Although current language does not provide specific reference on intentional actions to disrupt Quorum, it may be advisable for the City to make future consideration to prevent obstructionists from impeding the public process of planning groups.
Council Policy 600-24 Administrative Guidelines 3.3 Quorums
1. [Paragraph 5, 2nd Sentence] Members intentionally leaving a meeting to cause a lack of a quorum jeopardize the operations and integrity of the planning group.
2. [Paragraph 6 Sentences 4-5] It is the duty of elected members to attend planning group meetings, and to participate according to the roles and responsibilities of a planning group member as authorized in Council Policy 600-24, adopted bylaws and these Administrative Guidelines. Failure to act in good faith in fulfilling this duty by intentionally leaving meetings to lose quorum jeopardizes the planning group operations.
(6) From: david@so-park-thoughts.info
Subject: Re: Oct PC meeting's duration
Date: October 12, 2011 4:28:31 PM PDT
To: alvarezruchell@aol.com
Cc: pat.shields@ymail.com
You and Pat are taking this much too seriously.
1. Nobody wants a long meeting.
2. We do need to remember that we're using the clubhouse only because the restaurant manager lets us. If he says we're staying too late, we're out. (check w/Bernie, he tried to get CPUAC meetings there)
3. Carole Caffey does need to leave at 8:30.
4. The rest of us will, like sheep, probably remain until the end, or until we pass out.
5. I'm quite aware of the contents of CP 600-24.
6. Likewise, The Brown Act. FYI, The Brown Act only applies to "actionable items". It does not control discussions about meeting times, lengths, and other "internal business" of a committee. Thus, the "serial meeting" rule is silent on those discussions.
In other words, relax, I have nothing planned, and probably won't even mention the time. My objection that, after 2 hours, an evening meeting is usually not very productive still stands. I still object. But, see #4 above. - DS
ATTACHMENT 3. 25th Street Handout
25th Street Renaissance
Date: October 12,2011
Items that were included in the project scope with expectation that MAD would be in place:
• Removal of some existing trees either due to conflicts with the widening of the road,
new sidewalk/driveways, or to create a uniform planting palette.
• Widening of sidewalk between E St and Broadway and the irrigating and planting of the parkway.
• New trees, shrubs, and grasses to supplement existing trees.
• Planting areas at each popout. • Landscaped "green screens" at back of sidewalk to block view of parking lots.
• New irrigation system to service all planting areas. MAD was to pay for ongoing water and electricity costs.
• Replacement and addition of amenities such as benches, trash cans, and bike racks.
• Greater Golden Hill logo emblems put into sidewalk at a few intersections.
Two alternate ways to maintain these items:
• Encroachment Maintenance Removal Agreement (EMRA)
• Business Improvement District (BID)
Without maintenance commitment, the inclusion of the eight items above would have to be reevaluated.
ATTACHMENT 4. Walkability Handout
Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee
October 12, 2011
Agenda Item: Community Plan Update - Streetscape and Walkability (Bernie Turgeon, City of San Diego, bturgeon@sandiego.gov )
Issue: How to prioritize activities within the portion of the public right-of-way (ROW) available to pedestrians.
Organization of the ROW (pedestrian area)
Throughway or Pedestrian zone – Intended for travel and access needs. It should remain clear of obstacles, be clearly defined and be accessible to users of all abilities.
Furnishings zone – Transition area and buffer between areas of pedestrians and the roadway. Typical elements in this zone include: trees and planting, street signage, utility poles, utility pedestals, fire hydrants, parking meters, benches, trash receptacles, grates, driveways, etc.
Frontage zone – Transition area between the pedestrian zone and private property. This area allows a varied distance from the pedestrian to the adjacent buildings. Typical elements in this zone include: stairs, stoops, awnings, canopies, overhangs, fences, walls, planters, loading doors, garages, security grills, business signage, etc.
Walkable Sidewalk Corridor Design
Accessibility. Create accessible (ADA/Title 24) corridors for users of all abilities.
Adequate Travel Width. Try to provide adequate width for two people to pass a third person comfortably.
Safety. Create a safe, non-threatening, predictable experience.
Continuity. Provide obvious walking routes within the pedestrian zone to places people want to go.
Landscaping. Create microclimates and use urban forestry to contribute to the psychological and visual comfort of the walk.
Social Space. Provide places for people to interact, stand, visit, and sit.
Quality of Space. Contribute to and strengthen neighborhood and business district identity.
Sustainability. Design to accommodate storm water and drainage, heat island effect, green streets, drought resistant vegetation, etc.
City of San Diego General Plan
Mobility Element Policies – Safety & Accessibility, Connectivity & Walkability sections contain policies that support pedestrian travel and comfort.
Economic Prosperity Element policies – Commercial Land Use section contains policies to strengthen community identity and contribute to overall neighborhood revitalization.
Urban Design Element policies – Address aesthetic concerns and pedestrian comfort within the ROW.
Conservation Element policies – Address sustainability.
City of San Diego Street Design Manual
Pedestrian Design & Traffic Calming sections contain design standards for pedestrian access and travel.
Considerations
– Existing conditions often do not favor pedestrian access and travel.
– Pedestrian area often lacks width for multiple activities
– Ad hoc prioritization of activities - multiple regulations administered by different city departments
– Franchise agreements with utility providers may need to be renegotiated
– Some communities have a streamlined permitting process for encroachments (a PROW) administered by a local BID.
– Deferred maintenance of sidewalks
